tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (delete and reopen) Sun, 04 Nov 2018 23:22:20 -0800 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.9 & Feed Publisher Harry Gindi comments on "delete and reopen" (12750) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12750#Comment_12750 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12750#Comment_12750 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:06:31 -0800 Harry Gindi Minasteris: Netiquette rules from 1855

Apply liberally for maximal lulz.

]]> Emerton comments on "delete and reopen" (12746) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12746#Comment_12746 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12746#Comment_12746 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:03:04 -0800 Emerton Dear Minasteris,

People can read closed questions, and leave comments on them. It is not as if your question has vanished.

In earlier threads it was explained (particularly by MO Scribe) why your question attracted votes to close: it was poorly phrased, and the emphasis was such that it was not clear whether it was either interesting or difficult.

You could try editing your question (which is possible, whether or not it is closed) to take into account the comments you have received from me and MO Scribe, and then start a thread on meta asking for people to reopen it.

One thing to remember is that there is no single "you" who voted to close; five individuals chose to do so for five individual reasons. To get your question reopened, you need to convince five people to vote for this. Reposting your question is never going to be a successful approach. Editing your question to reflect what you now know, and to put the question in a context which makes it clearer what the true issues are, may well be successful.

Regards,

Matthew Emerton

]]> minasteris comments on "delete and reopen" (12739) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12739#Comment_12739 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12739#Comment_12739 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:56:35 -0800 minasteris So , because of your strong belief that nobody would tell something (are you sure?) i accept not to go further (although i do not think that MO's policy is too close the too difficult questions: there are many examples of too difficult but not closed questions at MO ). Thank you.
NOTE:I am not asking because you didn't answered the question, but because nobody who might had an idea at MO (there are expert people at sieve techniques,or not?) can't post an answer because it is closed and maybe will not pay any attention to a closed question so any chance of me to learn something from an expert about this or to have an opinion from someone expert goes away. ]]> Yemon Choi comments on "delete and reopen" (12726) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12726#Comment_12726 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12726#Comment_12726 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:23:50 -0800 Yemon Choi

It's not reasonable to expect that someone will come along and essentially write a research paper in order to answer your question.

In my view, this nails it (and is a response I may refer people to in any similar, future events).

]]> Ben Webster comments on "delete and reopen" (12724) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12724#Comment_12724 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12724#Comment_12724 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:04:40 -0800 Ben Webster As a point of MO policy, I would say the answer is absolutely no. If you do that, I think the correct response would be to delete the new question and undelete the old one. There's a procedure for the MO community as a whole to decide they were wrong to close a question, that's the reopen button. We discussed your question a lot as I recall, and you couldn't convince 5 people to press the reopen button. That's how MO works.

]]> Emerton comments on "delete and reopen" (12723) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12723#Comment_12723 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12723#Comment_12723 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:12:37 -0800 Emerton Dear Minasteris,

The answer (to your question about reposting your question) is "no". As I (and others, such as MO Scribe) have explained to you on several occasions, there is a reason that your original question has not been answered: on the one hand, standard conjectures imply that there are infintely many numbers that can't be written in the form you ask about; on the other hand, as MO Scribe explained in their answer, and as I explained in my answer on Math.SE, rigorously proving this would seem to require cutting edge seive techniques, if it is possible at all.

It's not reasonable to expect that someone will come along and essentially write a research paper in order to answer your question. You should just accept that the answer is currently conjectured to be yes, but is not proved, and leave it at that. (Alternatively, you could try to learn the relevant techniques yourself and prove it.)

Regards,

Matthew Emerton

]]> Scott Morrison comments on "delete and reopen" (12718) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12718#Comment_12718 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12718#Comment_12718 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:34:39 -0800 Scott Morrison For context, you should read this comment thread first before jumping in here.

]]> minasteris comments on "delete and reopen" (12717) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12717#Comment_12717 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/?Focus=12717#Comment_12717 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:49:54 -0800 minasteris